HISTORIAN AJP Taylor wrote: “Until 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state.” What a difference a century makes.

Today sees the publication of the 2017 edition of the Nanny State Index. Produced by the Institute of Economic Affairs with the help of free market think tanks across Europe, the index measures how much governments interfere in the social lives of their citizens. Last year the UK was the EU’s third worst nanny state. This year we have risen to the dizzy heights of second, lagging behind only the ultra-paternalists of Finland.

The index provides a comprehensive overview of the multitude of regulations affecting food, alcohol, tobacco and e-cigarettes across the European Union. Despite Britain’s liberal tradition and our reputation as free marketeers, the truth is that we have more than twice as many nanny state “points” as the best performing countries: Germany and the Czech Republic.

Our taxes on cigarettes and wine are the highest in the EU and our taxes on beer are the second highest in the EU. Our smoking ban is as draconian as any in Europe. We have just introduced plain packaging for tobacco, we have a sin tax on fizzy drinks coming into force next year and – as if that weren’t enough – Public Health England is busy shrinking our chocolate bars.

Related articles

The truth is that UK politicians have been eager cheerleaders for the nanny state for more than a decade

It is not just Britain suffering from a bout of coercive paternalism: the nanny state bug has infected most of Europe. Of the 28 EU countries included in the index, all but six have a higher score than they did last year.

There have been slivers of liberalisation. In Slovakia cyclists are now permitted to drink a pint of beer before using a cycle lane. Finland has repealed its tax on ice cream. Bulgaria and Spain nearly introduced a sugar tax but thought better of it. But these are slim pickings. Overall the picture is gloomy.

Vapers have been particularly badly hit. When we compiled last year’s Nanny State Index, only one country taxed e-cigarette fluid. That number has now risen to six and it seems likely to rise further as governments scramble for money to offset falling tobacco revenues. The number of countries that ban the use of e-cigarettes indoors has risen to 11. And thanks to a new EU directive, a wide range of vaping products are now illegal, along with most e-cigarette advertising.

GETTY

UK politicians have been eager cheerleaders for the nanny state for more than a decade

Vaping is the only area where Britain performs relatively well. In last year’s index it scored a perfect zero for e-cigarette regulation. That has now changed thanks to the EU but Brussels cannot be blamed for Britain’s dismal showing in the broader league table.

Even if we repealed every EU lifestyle regulation after Brexit we would only drop from second to third. The truth is that UK politicians have been eager cheerleaders for the nanny state for more than a decade, gold-plating EU directives and championing excessive regulation of their own.

There are signs that the paternalistic juggernaut could slow down under Theresa May but it seems unlikely to be turned around. The latest brainwave of the public health lobby is taxing fizzy drinks but Britain is not alone in capitulating to the fanatics on this issue.

All over Europe there are public health campaigners calling for higher taxes and more bans. France banned free refills of sugary drinks this year. In January the Greeks introduced a tax on wine for the first time. The Czech Republic, a smokers’ haven for decades, will introduce a smoking ban this month. Irish politicians want to put curtains around alcohol in shops. Happy hours are illegal in French and Finnish pubs. Hungary has a food tax so extensive that it seems to apply to everything apart from celery. Not to be left out, the EU has banned small packs of cigarettes and rolling tobacco, with a ban on menthol cigarettes starting in 2020.

Much of the nanny state agenda is a moralistic tax-grab but since it is ostensibly carried out in the name of public health, it is worth noting that there is no correlation between Nanny State Index scores and life expectancy.

There is no correlation between tobacco control scores and smoking rates. There is no correlation between alcohol control scores and binge-drinking. Countries with the toughest anti-obesity policies do not have lower rates of obesity. It is more difficult to evaluate anti-vaping policies as it is not obvious what they are trying to achieve but if the aim is to somehow improve health they have failed.

Despite all the pain for little or no gain the nanny state shows no sign of retreating. As CS Lewis once observed: “Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

It doesn’t have to be like this. The huge variation in scores between the countries at the top and bottom of the nanny state table show that lifestyle regulation is a choice.

Sensible, law-abiding Englishmen may no longer pass through life without noticing the existence of the state but we should aim to become a little less like Finland and a little more like Germany and the Czech Republic.

The author is director of lifestyle economics at the Institute of Economic Affairs.